MycroftHolmes:The reason why, as a policy, first responders do not allow untrained and unequipped individuals to fight fires is that it creates a situation that places other first responders at risk. Containing a fully involved structure fire that is vacant is handled differently than a structure fire with individuals in it. Having the police keep individuals out of the danger zone, so that firefighters can stay out of the danger zone unnecessarily is entirely appropriate.

1) At no time did he go into or approach the "fully involved structure", so discussions of how you contain one with individuals in it is irrelevant.2)

MycroftHolmes:Lunaville: MycroftHolmes: redmid17: MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?

Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.

Fire fighters do not operate that way. You just allowed a situation to change from containing a fully involved structure fire into a rescue operation which places firefighters at greater risk. Fire and rescue guys will not just sit back and watch a man burn to death, even if it was his own choice.

These two are not alike

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

Please, I beg you, do not protect me.

Got it. If involved in a fire, you are requesting that fire and rescue crew do not attempt to pull you out, What an idiot.

it's getting to a point where every overzealous tazermonkey with a badge story that i see leaves me thinking 'well, at least they didn't drive over him with their tank'.

the funny thing is, if the guy was standing too close to the fire, is flopping around on the ground in the exact same place with thousands of volts flowing thru him really supposed to be an improvement?

MycroftHolmes:Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: Yes, I understand that those two are not the same group. Still not sure what h is point is. Nearest I can figure, he is saying that cops should not act in ways to minimize danger to anyone else except other cops. Which is dumb.

Nope, I'm saying that cops have no duty to rescue people from a hazard that they didn't create, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so, contrary to what Brony was claiming.

So, you are missing the whole point about endangering other first responders, who will place themselves in harms way to rescue people in the danger zone.

And you're missing the whole point about Brony being wrong about:

BronyMedic:Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

Guy is on his own property using his own hose and his own water to spray a fire endangering his property. At what point is this illegal? If he's not doing something illegal while on his own property, then do police have jurisdiction to tell him to vacate?

Since when did it become required that we all take some kind of firemen training course to protect our homes? If I have a kitchen fire, do I need to vacate and call 911 or am I allowed to put it out on my own? Will I get tazed if I decide to use my own fire extinguisher on a small fire at my home? I suppose a bucket brigade would be considered terrorist organization.

Here is a good rule of thumb. During an emergency obey the orders of the first responders. They didn't tase him because he was trying to save his fence, they tased him because he wouldn't leave the area.

From a different article:

"Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."

He wasn't just standing there spraying his fence, he was endangering himself.

If anyone wants to argue which is worse, tased or dead, I am all ears.

MycroftHolmes:kindms: BronyMedic: Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:

Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

yes and walking up to him like a human being and saying hey buddy, the fire fighters are on the way, you really need to move back etc. Would have taken all of about 30 seconds and could have been done from afar and as mentioned in the article they could have turned off the water.

Instead of that they made some comment about letting the insurance take care of it and then lit him up with a taser.

They did that, he returned to the fire. He was obviously pretty worked up (I would be too). At that point physical restraint was probably necesary, and the taser is the safest (for all inviolved) options.

I love naive idiots 'Well, they should have just asked nicely and everything would have been great, because everyone is rational all the time'.

Sorry, the police were right in this one. You don't let bystanders jack with a fire, as they would be putting other people at risk.

You spend to much time around cops, taser the guy seriously? They could have pulled him away. there was a time cops did this. Simply pull him away.There was no risk to themselves by simply pulling the guy away from a fire.

Theaetetus:Aren't you supposed to do your classic "Welcome to Ignore" sign-off when you do that?

Why. It's expected from you. You always attempt to get a rise out of me in these sorts of threads. Kinda why I have you favorited as doing it.

Theaetetus:Anyway, I notice your goal post moving attempt, and decline to be so restrained. We were talking about whether a garden hose could protect a fence from radiant heat. You first claimed it would, then claimed it wouldn't and that earlier-BronyMedic was wrong, and once called upon your contradicting statements, changed to some discussion of safety gear in a "typical urban housing profile". Do you really think that actually changes the fact that water doesn't burn?

Would you like to directly quote where I said water burns? Oh wait. I never did.

What I did say, that given a "typical" housing profile common in urban settings of a zero-lot or small lot structure seperated by 6-12 feet of space and next to a fully involved structure was that that small amount of water from a garden hose EVAPORATES quickly given radiant and convective heat. It's the reason high flow hand lines are typically used to protect the adjacent structures.

I don't have a Firefighter I or Pumper Operation textbook to pull a water flow-strutrual exposure chart from at this current time. Check back with me in 8 hours, when I'm not stuck behind a desk dispatching for a back injury, and I'll be happy to cite you complete with page. Sorry. I linked a firefighting textbook you could openly download from a torrent if you so chose.

Theaetetus:Why not? They had no duty to act to save the homeowner's butt, which is what you were claiming.

Which is in direct violation to the almost universal adoption of Incident Command Policies as mandated by the federal government since 2001. If that department has an ICS policy for multi-agency interoperation, and violated it willingly, they are liable for damages resulting from it.

MycroftHolmes:Lunaville: Elroyone: I agree that the police needed to intervene for his safety, but tasering the man was extreme.

This thread is going to make me blow a fuse and my brain is going to burn down.The adult with the gardening hose does not require parenting from the police nor was it appropriate to spank him with electricity.

So, you would not fault the firefighters for sitting back and watching the man burn to death?

You know, let me pull this card out: my uncle was a firefighter ... in the seventies ... when half the fancy equipment Brony is carrying on about hadn't been invented yet and he and the other firefighters let us (their children) ride in the back of the vehicle to the emergency events. This was before seatbelts. We jostled around back with first aid supplies zinging around unsecured. He took us along to some hellacious fires: one where lightening struck the home, traveled through the T.V and killed the little boy the same age as my brother; one that consisted of the remains of a crashed small aircraft with shoes, and belts, and flesh hanging from tree limbs, and more.

The risk of this man bursting into flames might be real, but it is overblown. You all are acting like the man doused himself in plenty of gasoline before approaching the fire. Furthermore, if you are so concerned that he may catch afire, for the love of Nelly spinning on a stick, use one of those hook things (I can't remember the proper name.) rescuers used to use to drag the lake for drowning victims. Just toss that thing over there a few times, until you get his pant leg or shirt and drag him back.

And do you know what happens when there is a fire in a place where there is no fire department of any sort? Because I've been in that situation also. If the garden hose will reach, woot! Otherwise, a bucket line is set up with everyone on hand, including children, who is strong enough to pass a bucket. And the group just keeps going until the fire burns the given structure down or it is put out. (I had boy cousins who set the neighbors field on fire during a drought one summer.)

SirDigbyChickenCaesar:Here is a good rule of thumb. During an emergency obey the orders of the first responders. They didn't tase him because he was trying to save his fence, they tased him because he wouldn't leave the area.

From a different article:

"Paramedics rushed Dan Jensen to the hospital after he was incapacitated. Authorities said he suffered smoke inhalation."

He wasn't just standing there spraying his fence, he was endangering himself.

If anyone wants to argue which is worse, tased or dead, I am all ears.

"Forseth said officers made a "split-second decision" about the type of force to use. Officer Daniel Sosa-Jones was a few feet away - maybe arm's length - from Dan Jensen."Link

I'd say the smoke inhalation line was probably bullshiat unless they treated the cop standing next to him as well. The ambulance took him to the hospital for being tazed.

"After they tased me, about three of them picked me up and brought me out here and planted me on my face and handcuffed me," Jensen said.

From there, he was placed in a squad car, where he said he started having breathing problems.

"I just had surgery a couple of weeks prior. I was begging them for oxygen," Jensen said.

No breathing problems before having his entire body shocked. Can't say I'm surprised with the aftermath.Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-victim-claims-police-overr eacted#ixzz2C7hvJgdY

MycroftHolmes:Lunaville: MycroftHolmes: redmid17: MycroftHolmes: Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: 1) Force was not necesary, he should have been allowed to continue to put himself at risk, even knowing that his actions would put rescuers at risk as well?

Of course, the cops have no duty to rescue, so really, it's not his actions that put them at risk but their own. They could have just stood back and kept the crowd away.

Fire fighters do not operate that way. You just allowed a situation to change from containing a fully involved structure fire into a rescue operation which places firefighters at greater risk. Fire and rescue guys will not just sit back and watch a man burn to death, even if it was his own choice.

These two are not alike

Understood. The police were acting in a way consistent with minimizing the danger of the situation. They acted to protect the civilians and fire fighters. Not sure what your point is.

Please, I beg you, do not protect me.

Got it. If involved in a fire, you are requesting that fire and rescue crew do not attempt to pull you out, What an idiot.

CruiserTwelve:BronyMedic: Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

Give up Brony. Everyone knows how to do a cop's job better than the cops, and in these threads you're either a cop hater or a troll.

come on guy enough with the brotherly love of cops are you telling me you and your partner would not have simply walked over to the guy and looked him directly in the face and said hey man your really gonna get hurt here.

OR like these farks bark orders at him then shoot him with a taser because he fears for his property nobody else is protecting?

Pulling him away seems like a pretty easy thing to do and it doesn't involve the word SHOOT

BronyMedic:Uh, submitter? FTFA, he was told by emergency responders on scene to stay the fark away from a fully involved structure fire. He continued to place himself, and others on scene who would have to help him, at risk of serious injury.

A garden hose ain't going to do shiat to protect an exposure, and from the range you can hit it with one, you're going to get burned without protective gear - or worse, you're either going to be caught in a flashover, or hit with smoke in the face when you take a breath.

There's a reason we wear this when we fight fires, even small ones.

[www.masoncity.net image 336x448]

There's also a reason we use these:

[www.nps.gov image 287x353]

At 125-150 PSI pumping 150 - 300 GPM, versus this:

Which is pretty much only good for putting out a small grass fire.

And there's a reason why standing and watering your wooden fence on your own property when a fire is approaching it is not only somewhat useful, not an endangerment but legal. Is the point to fight the fire or yell "NO, ME! I GET TO!!11"?

Cause this whole thing is dogsh*t and the guy knows it and the cop knows it and the DA is going to likely concur and real heroes HELP people, not take them out at the knees for trying to keep their house from catching fire.

What if he had a heart condition? He'd be dead. Would that be OK? Is that "serving and protecting", too? Would that have been dandy and justifiable since it would have ended this GREAT DANGER he was putting people in?

No. F*cking. Sale. And you can skip the "No, see, it works like THIS and you can't possibly comprehend!" pose.

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.

BronyMedic:Would you like to directly quote where I said water burns? Oh wait. I never did.

What I did say, that given a "typical" housing profile common in urban settings of a zero-lot or small lot structure seperated by 6-12 feet of space and next to a fully involved structure was that that small amount of water from a garden hose EVAPORATES quickly given radiant and convective heat. It's the reason high flow hand lines are typically used to protect the adjacent structures.

No, you didn't. Actually, you were talking about spraying the ground (presumably at the grass fire?) and how that wouldn't protect a fence from radiant heat. I was the one who mentioned spraying the fence, and I was also the one who mentioned evaporation. Scrolling up in this thread will prove that.

I linked a firefighting textbook you could openly download from a torrent if you so chose.

And commit copyright infringement? I think not. :P

Theaetetus: Why not? They had no duty to act to save the homeowner's butt, which is what you were claiming.

Which is in direct violation to the almost universal adoption of Incident Command Policies as mandated by the federal government since 2001... The laws have been changing since Katrina, and the courts are increasingly willing to award judgements based on incident command policies adopted by departments.

And as I said above: which alleged federal laws are these that govern use and structure of state police powers? Because that's potentially a huge constitutional problem, if they exist as you claim

Now, if you're talking about a state law, that's different. But you're clearly stressing "federal" over and over.

And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.

BronyMedic:Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.

Congratulations, America. You have CEOs making foreign policy, insurance adjusters determining the value of your well being, cops mugging people and lawyers putting out fires. Heading for a cliff? Hell, if your parachute isn't open yet, I'd cancel lunch.

I'm tired of pointing out why what this guy did was not only a bad idea, but endangered far more than his life, and being met with what basically amounts to "WHARGARBL TASER DERP PIGS BAD"

Peace.

Seriously shooting someone with a taser was needed in this situation? You can't just jump to lets shoot em every farking time. That's the point your missing helping does not include the word shoot.

Yeah the guys not that bright so in place of pulling him away they shoot with less lethal device creating more danger. Incapacitate him next to a danger your telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy.

I agree with you he is pretty stupid but you can't simply go around shooting people.

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it correct. Interagency ICS adoption since Katrina has made law enforcement agencies increasingly liable for not following their own policies and procedures. In addition, I've pointed out to you that Warren v. DC does not apply here, as the police are on scene and considered "in command" of the incident.

Unless you've got a link to some of those alleged federal laws you keep claiming exist, then we currently have one Supreme Court case standing for the proposition that the police do not have an affirmative duty to protect citizens from dangers they did not create, and... your vague handwaving and demands for more citations.But sure, what the heck. I'll also cite Hartzler v. San Jose, DeShaney v. Winebago, and Balistreri. Unless the police have actually taken custody of someone or performed other actions that would give rise to a "special relationship" between the person and the police, the police have no duty to act to protect them. Simply being "on scene" does not give rise to that special relationship.

Theaetetus:No, you didn't. Actually, you were talking about spraying the ground (presumably at the grass fire?) and how that wouldn't protect a fence from radiant heat. I was the one who mentioned spraying the fence, and I was also the one who mentioned evaporation. Scrolling up in this thread will prove that.

No. You mentioned math calculation. I was not told there would be math on this test.

At any rate, like I said. We can revisit this in 8 hours when I have a textbook with tables for flow/pressure and exposure distance.

Theaetetus:Now, if you're talking about a state law, that's different. But you're clearly stressing "federal" over and over.

I think I see where the confusion is coming in to play here.

The states and local departments have had to adopt similar laws and policies to the federal incident command system/NIMS guidelines since 9/11 to continue recieving federal grant monies and funds from the Feds in regards to emergency response and homeland security.

Those adoptions have increasingly made law enforcement and fire departments civil liability targets based on their following their own Incident Command and operations guidelines, where soverign immunity used to protect them. In addition, courts are increasingly hostile towards civil agencies for the history of abuse of soverign immunity in the past.

95% of the cases you will never hear about because they settle under the table.

Theaetetus:And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.

Possibly. But the department would also be willing to settle rather quickly as well because of the negative publicity, and the risk of dragging out into a civil liability trial. The fact of the matter is, as they were in control of the scene and told the guy to GTFO and he refused, not only did he refuse a lawful order from the cops, he also endangered his own life doing so. While he didn't run into a burning building, he did get in the danger area - going from the article's limited information - of radiant heat exposure, smoke, and explosion/collapse. As pointed out here beforehand, he was treated for smoke inhalation.

bunner:What if he had a heart condition? He'd be dead. Would that be OK? Is that "serving and protecting", too? Would that have been dandy and justifiable since it would have ended this GREAT DANGER he was putting people in?

A taser is not a defibrillator. In tens of thousands of activations since the 90s, there have only been 300 cases of sudden cardiac arrest.

BronyMedic:Theaetetus: And additionally, I'd be surprised if the homeowner even had standing to bring suit under such laws governing command polices between different departments.

Possibly. But the department would also be willing to settle rather quickly as well because of the negative publicity, and the risk of dragging out into a civil liability trial. The fact of the matter is, as they were in control of the scene and told the guy to GTFO and he refused, not only did he refuse a lawful order from the cops, he also endangered his own life doing so. While he didn't run into a burning building, he did get in the danger area - going from the article's limited information - of radiant heat exposure, smoke, and explosion/collapse. As pointed out here beforehand, he was treated for smoke inhalation.

I'd suggest the opposite - because they told the guy to GTFO and he refused and therefore refused an order of questionable legality from the cops (;P), their position would be that he brought the danger on himself and they'd never settle. Furthermore, with a clear standing problem like the one I suggested, they'd just move for dismissal under rule 12 at summary judgement, and wouldn't ever have to worry about a trial.

Theaetetus:I'd suggest the opposite - because they told the guy to GTFO and he refused and therefore refused an order of questionable legality from the cops (;P), their position would be that he brought the danger on himself and they'd never settle. Furthermore, with a clear standing problem like the one I suggested, they'd just move for dismissal under rule 12 at summary judgement, and wouldn't ever have to worry about a trial.

I know there's a reason I hate lawyers. :P Even though I respect you, particularly, far more than you realize.

I don't have a rebutal for that other than if Florida's laws are written anything like Tennessee's are, the Police on a fireground have legal responsibility for crowd control and removal of unauthorized/interfering persons, as well as non-fireground law enforcement duties. Once fire arrives on scene, they either unify or give firefighting command to the highest trained, highest ranked, first arriving officer, but they still retain legal authority over access by unauthorized persons.

Lunaville:Honest Bender: Man, Brony managed to hook a lot of fish this thread.... I thought people had caught on to his trollolloll ways by now...

A few threads ago, he posted some endearing statements about babies and neonatal units. Is he a troll? I was under the impression he is, for the most part, a little sweetie?

Honest Bender's been ignored for a long time on my end. He seems to think that the only reason I'd disagree with him is because I'm a troll.

In the grand scheme of things? Yeah, it is. N=300 when you have tens of thousands of activations (let's take, just on an offside, since 1994 when the first "Taser" type LtL devices became used by the LAPD 30,000 activations. Which is conservative.)

0.01% chance of SCA. In addition, retrospective case review of those SCA studies often revealed that they were related to prior drug use or combativeness with physical restraint. It's called Sudden In Custody Death Syndrome. it's the reason anyone who gets tased is supposed to be medically evaluated per the manufacturer now.

I have never found making up dime store log entry labels to be either an effective remedy or an excuse for cheap behavior. If you need to do all that cause it's "the way it is", you have my sympathies, but not my respect. I wont pretend you care if you don't. They knocked a guy to his knees for squirting water on his fence when the house next door was on fire. That's not America. Hell, man, that's not even Cuba. I think that it's time to review the who works for whom aspect of public service. YMMV.

I'm tired of pointing out why what this guy did was not only a bad idea, but endangered far more than his life, and being met with what basically amounts to "WHARGARBL TASER DERP PIGS BAD"

Peace.

Seriously shooting someone with a taser was needed in this situation? You can't just jump to lets shoot em every farking time. That's the point your missing helping does not include the word shoot.

Yeah the guys not that bright so in place of pulling him away they shoot with less lethal device creating more danger. Incapacitate him next to a danger your telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy.

I agree with you he is pretty stupid but you can't simply go around shooting people.

Your sentence stating "Incapacitate him next to a danger you're telling him to get away from is dangerous and lazy" needs to be engraved on a marble block, mounted on a sturdy handle and beaten about several people's head and shoulders.

If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?

They should have warned him of the danger, and left it at that. Its a free country, and a person has the right to expose themselves to risks to protect their property. Once the fire dept arrives and starts to fight the fire, then use force if he interferes, but that is it. Yes there is a risk, yes he may need to be rescued, but there is also the possibility that his actions could reduce the risk of the fire spreading, thereby reducing the risk to others. Basically, the police start issuing orders, he ignores then, bam contempt of cop, taser deployed, it wasn't because the cops really cared about the potential liability either way.

bunner:I have never found making up dime store log entry labels to be either an effective remedy or an excuse for cheap behavior.

Because at the time they didn't know WHY people were keeling over dead from use. As I said before, a Taser is not a defibrillator or cardioverter. They don't work the same way, deliver the same energy, or the same waveform to the same area.

Labeling a specific phenomena for what it is, and then taking steps to mitigate it from occuring while still being able to properly use a device for what it is intended for is "an excuse for cheep behavior" in your mind?

In addition, the cops are under no ethical or moral obligation to "fight fair" with you when you're being a beligerant ass, and disobeying a lawful order. If you want a fair fight, go take up boxing or MMA and fight in a sanctioned match. All that cop cares about is making it home at the end of his shift to his family, and (hopefully) your constitional rights to appropriate and justified force. The moment you decide to refuse and endanger their lives in doing so, the situation escalates. It's debatable whether this was the 100% correct answer to the situation given the limited information in the article, but it certainly points out why they would implement it to someone who is familiar with structure fires.

bunner:you have my sympathies, but not my respect. I wont pretend you care if you don't. They knocked a guy to his knees for squirting water on his fence when the house next door was on fire. That's not America. Hell, man, that's not even Cuba. I think that it's time to review the who works for whom aspect of public service. YMMV.

I don't want your respect, tbqh, or your sympathies. Nothing I say is going to change your mind, to be quite honest part deux.

And no. They knocked a guy to his knees for refusing to follow a lawful order and being beligerant with the people trying to keep him from getting himself, and potentially others hurt in the process.

nytmare:Friend of mine had a situation where his neighbor's wall was on fire inside between two studs (electrical?), and he was keeping it under control with a garden hose. When the Fire Dept got there, they forced him to back off but in the time they took dicking around setting up their equipment, locating fire hydrants, connecting their huge hoses, the fire grows. Now the house is permanently damaged and the family has to relocate.

What a waste.

You will never see firefighters and EMS ever, never, ever, under any circumstance, hurry. I swear to God, every Fireman I've ever seen pulling up to a house whether it's for a fire or a medical emergency, they take their sweet time.

They pull up, casually climb down from the truck, mosey to the storage lockers and get some equipment, then kinda make their way to whatever the emergency is. I can't imagine how long it would take them to setup a bunch of hoses and stuff. Just about forever, if I had to guess.

CruiserTwelve:BronyMedic: Had he been harmed in any way, the police would have fully been responsible for allowing him to do so since they had command of the scene and had told him multiple times to stay back.

Give up Brony. Everyone knows how to do a cop's job better than the cops, and in these threads you're either a cop hater or a troll.

It's certainly unreasonable to expect a group empowered with supra-law privileges, embedded within and protected by a supposedly objective legal system, and considerably armed beyond that granted to the populace at large to be held to a higher standard than the common plebe.

BronyMedic:They knocked a guy to his knees for refusing to follow a lawful order

Yeah, about that.

and being beligerant with

That' not even funny.

the people trying to keep him from getting himself, and potentially others hurt in the process.

Apparently they didn't try too hard. This stinks. And you know it and they know it like all public sector and LEO, you guys would back each other up for throwing a cripple down a flight of stairs if they managed to not sufficiently kiss your ass. And that is NOT service, that is NOT protection, and that is NOT helpful. That's bored bullies looking for sufficient room to wave their dicks. If I have to move to a communist country to make my own decisions about whether or not I'm allowed to assess personal risk in the defense of my property, perhaps I'm already in one. *sigh* And trying to open the museum of not getting it on my front lawn like it's some sort of moral obligation for me to pay the cover charge isn't gonna make me go in and buy a cup of kool aid.

I don't care if you punch a time clock or how jaded you are, LEO, fire and medicine has an IMPLICIT MORAL OBLIGATION ASPECT involved and it requires the people who would deign to wear those hats to ACCEPT THAT IMPLIED SOCIAL CONTRACT, and THAT is where the "due respect" comes from. That's the big deal. Not the badge, not the rubber boots and sirens. THAT CONTRACT. And if that contract doesn't interest the person who puts that hat on, THEY SHOULD BUY ANOTHER F*CKING HAT.

BronyMedic:kendelrio:If I were next to a cliff and was being told to back away from the cliff, would I be tased to make sure I didn't fall off the cliff?

What does heat and smoke do? Why are you told to stay low and go?

Yes, I understand the concept of getting under the smoke, clear air approximately 3 feet up etc. However, it has been pointed out the man was on HIS property, spraying HIS fence to keep the fire from spreading to HIS house to protect it.He was told by police to move back until the fire department got there, he did so at first but chose to continue spraying the fence. It was also stated the fire department was on scene six minutes after the original call (which is awesome by the way). I ask you this: which of these puts more people at risk: a)Homeowner who is spraying a fence on the "good" side of a fire does so, waits a minute or so, goes back to spraying FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MINUTES then moves away when the fire department gets there(B same scenario but now the homeowner is tased and is immobile near the very danger the police wanted to remove him from and now to "save" him from the fire, 2 or more police have to grab him and move him and the tasee now has health issues.

bunner:And you know it and they know it like all public sector and LEO, you guys would back each other up for throwing a cripple down a flight of stairs if they managed to not sufficiently kiss your ass.

Riiiiiiiight. We're all in one gigantic conspiracy to cover eachother's ass.

Thank you. I think I've heard the stupidest thing on FARK since tabbing over to politics

bunner:Yeah, about that. That' not even funny. Apparently they didn't try too hard. This stinks. And that is NOT service, that is NOT protection, and that is NOT helpful. That's bored bullies looking for sufficient room to wave their dicks. If I have to move to a communist country to make my own decisions about whether or not I'm allowed to assess personal risk in the defense of my property, perhaps I'm already in one. *sigh* And trying to open the museum of not getting it on my front lawn like it's some sort of moral obligation for me to pay the cover charge isn't gonna make me go in and buy a cup of kool aid.

Your personal freedom stops where someone else's nose begins. You do not have the right to knowingly create a dangerous situation which endangers the lives of First Responders, and takes away valuable resources to protect from further property damage which are now needed to rescue and treat you for your libertarian ideals.

You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to be nice to them. But if you're told to GTFO of the way and wait for the fire department because it's unsafe by a legally identified First Responder for that jurisdiction, and you refuse, yes, you are interfering with the operations of duly identified emergency responders, and refusing to follow a lawful order. And when you become beligerant afterwords, and decide to endanger the lives of cops before fire arrrives on scene because you don't want some damage to your fence, then yes. You're going to be roughed up.